B.ANTHONY RAJ vs THOMAS HOSPITAL

APPELLANT was the complainant before the State Commission, where he had filed a complaint alleging medical negligence on the part of the respondents.

VERY briefly the facts of the present case are that the wife of appellant No. 1 had pain in the stomach for which she was taken to the first respondent, who after diagnosis stated it to be a case of acute appendicitis. Hence a surgery was directed to be done. It is the case of the appellant-complainants that at the time of surgery on 15.10.1993, proper doses of anaesthesia was not administered and that is why during the surgery she woke up and then she was given an overdose of anaesthesia without testing her suitability, as a result of which she had a respiratory arrest for four minutes during the operation. Immediately after this, she was removed to the second respondent-hospital, where she finally died on 22.10.1993. Thus alleging medical negligence on the part of the respondents a complaint was filed, which was contested by the respondent-opposite parties. The State Commission after hearing the parties and perusing the material on record dismissed the complaint on the ground that no evidence has been led by the complainants in support of alleged medical negligence and no expert evidence has been led or any medical literature is produced in support of the alleged case of medical negligence as well. Aggrieved by this order, present appeal has been filed before this Commission.

1 HAVE heard learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant relies upon the documents issued by the second respondent-Vijaya Hospital, which stated "she had respiratory and cardiac arrest following IV Calmpose" and had also observed that "Cardiac arrest on the end of spinal anaesthesia for appendectomy". According to him, the specific allegation was made by the appellant-complainants in para-17, which reads as under: "A perusal of the case sheet will show that the condition of the patient was normal but it was due to administration of dosage of anaesthesia that the brain damage had occurred. It is not clear as to when exactly the irretrievable damage had occurred whether at the O.P. 1 hospital or O.P. II. They HAVE to explain this aspect as the petitioner being laymen is unable to point his finger with exactitude.

THIS has not been specifically denied by the respondents. Hence their case stands proved. No further evidence was required. It is also their case that anaesthesia was administered by someone who was not qualified to do so. Dealing with the last allegation, I find that this was not part of the pleadings and I also see that in the written version filed by the opposite parties, they had taken specific plea in para 4 of the written version that "with the able administrator of qualified anaesthetist, the anaesthesia was administered in the spinal cord." This has not been rebutted at any stage in any form. Hence, I find no merit in this plea raised by the appellants.

MAIN allegation of the complainants is that the deceased was administered anaesthesia in the initial instance of 0.5 ml., which was under dosage and when the patient opened her eyes and when she spoke few words during the operation, she was administered anaesthesia without testing her suitability. She was further given overdose of anaesthesia and further 0,5 ml. of Calmpose injection. It is these sequence of events which led to the stopage of oxygen supply to the brain and in fact this is specific allegation of medical negligence.

LEARNED Counsel for the appellants relies upon documents issued by the Vijaya Health Centre but I find that the documents of Vijaya Health Centre at no stage show that what was done is contrary to the medical practice or this was a case of medical negligence. Medical history of the patient is on record but no expert evidence or medical literature has been brought JMJT record by the complainant-appellants to prove their case as to what was done within the operation theatre which was not as per standard medical practice or it was this specific act of commission or commission which resulted in the failure of supply of oxygen to the brain.

1 APPRECIATE the fact that the appellant-respondents may not be able to marshal a doctor in support of their contentions, but in this case at least they could have brought medical literature on the subject in support of their contention but this was not done nor do I see any evidence led by the appellant-complainants nor is there any cross-examination of the opposite parties to take advantage in support of their case.

IN view of the aforementioned circumstances, I cannot but agree with the conclusion reached by the State Commission that the appellant-complainants have failed to prove their case of medical negligence. In the, latest judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, III (2005) CPJ 9 (SC)=VI (2005) SLT 1=111 (2005) CCR 9 (SC)=122 (2005) DLT 83 (SC)=(2005) 6 SCC 208, it has been held that it is for the complainant to prove his case. It was held that in a case of medical negligence, it is enough for the defendant to show the standard of care and skill attained was of the ordinary competent medical practitioner exercising an ordinary degree of professional skill. In the instant case nothing has been brought on record that the doctor was not competent or did not possess the skill, resulting in the unfortunate end of her or did not do what ought to have been done or did what should not have been done. The case had to be proved by expert evidence, which was not done in this case. In the aforementioned circumstances, I find no infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission to call for interference. This appeal has no merit, hence dismissed.